Hey say what you want about Hitler or orange Mussolini, but at least they’re better than the person of the year of 2006.

Only two questions

1. How do you see through it

2. When can I buy it

Not saying it can’t be, but I’ll be more convinced by an article that is a bit less emotionally loaded. It’s clear that the author has a bone to pick with Microsoft, and it reads as it’s written by a high schooler who wants to LARP as a journalist.

Just to be clear I have been in big tech corpos with cult-ish undertones and I have also seen the mindset poppycock shoved to my face multiple times, it’s not that I find their contents hard to believe. I just find that article hard to trust.

To what end exactly?

More than some nefarious corpo, I think this is more an evolution of the same problem that existed before AI was popular.

Some people realised that their credibility as a job candidate was tied on a very surface level to their GitHub profile, so they sought to optimise it. They started going to cool projects and proposing absolutely stupid merge requests, like “replace single quotes with double quotes in README.md” or “improved spacing in this sentence” in the hopes that the developers would go “well why not”, so they could show that they contributed to tensorflow or redis or what have you. Already years ago, a lot of FLOSS projects were plagued by spam PRs.

Now coming up with absolutely stupid reasons to issue a PR is a tedious job and you have a very fierce competition of people doing the same thing as you, so… why not gain the edge with AI?

Did you misread my sentence?

Ok, unpopular take here:

Based Russia, we should all be doing this - and extend it to all the junk we import from China that we have to replace every year instead of only buying once, flooding them with money and sending local production out of business.

Just because Russia is a terrorist state that doesn’t deserve their sovereignty and should receive the 1945 axis treatment, it doesn’t mean that they can’t do one right thing once in a blue moon. This is it.

Jesus says that for every number in an empty set it is true that 1=2?

That’s formally correct, any property can be attributed to elements of an empty set - for example, every unicorn currently living in my house is afraid of tea.

This is counterintuitive because for this to be true you’d expect me to have to prove the existence of my unicorns and then their phobias, but formally speaking I just need for counter-examples to be impossible.

Logically speaking the negation of “all my unicorns are afraid of tea” is “at least one unicorn is not afraid of tea”, which is not possible since I have no unicorns, therefore my sentence is formally correct. Even though people wouldn’t accept this because it is counterintuitive.

Did I get the joke?

https://singularity.github.io/

You might like this game

What an enlightening read, I enjoyed it through and through.

I am a bit confused though, as my car is electric and fucking my charging port somehow doesn’t feel as safe.

Aha, gotchu now

Yes but you are talking about party funding. Politicians are not into it for the funding, that’s peanuts.

The relationship between politics and money is already regulated, that’s what embezzlement laws are about. They can be improved, but you’ll find it’s harder than you would think.

Surely decoupling money from politics is not possible, which is what I was answering about.

Party funding and salaries are not “the money” that is in politics, those are peanuts. Do you think Elon musk is interested in a government job because he wants the paycheck?

Compromise is the… point, of politics? Are you sure? At best it’s a mean to an end, and only in democracy. We’re not taking moral judgement here, just what is what.

Obviously it’s a Hitler quote, I thought we were roleplaying warmongering here. It’s also a loading screen quote from HOI4, I thought it would be in theme. Apparently not, only the Swiss guy can LARP 😔

I’m with you. I was just addressing the general question, which doesn’t get addressed as much as it should :)

I would rather see the conversation going towards reforming the broken system rather than going in the direction of “fuck the state it’s all broken anyway” which wouldn’t help anybody.

Let’s call this murder an act of political violence. If it’s the first, brutal step towards reform, then it’s one thing and we can “celebrate”. If it’s the first step towards Dodge City (which is the vibes I get from some comments) then there is very little to be happy about.

Best answer here

Taking money from politics is like taking food from cooking. Not compatible.

The whole point of politics is power, influence, assignment of scarce resources. I don’t mean this in a bad way, it’s literally what politics is about: you want your government to make laws that influence your community, to collect taxes and use them in a certain way, to regulate certain things the way you’d like. Without those things politics are meaningless.

Money is just power that you can measure and trade, it will always be part of the equation. Removing money from politics is nonsensical.

This is a very interesting question that would require so much more talk than is proper for a lemmy comment.

I’ll try and make a stupidly short summary:

In political philosophy, it is commonly accepted to define a state as a political community where the government detains the monopoly over legitimate use of physical force.

Basically what allows you to feel safe in such a community - as opposed to a more tribal one - is that you know that you can’t be harmed by your fellow citizen. When you buy your groceries you don’t want to worry that the shopkeeper will beat you up because he doesn’t want to give you change. When you are outside enjoying your sandwich you don’t want to worry about a random guy cracking your head open in order to steal it. You are not worried because you know that their violence would be considered illegitimate, and would be met by legitimate violence.

This only works if everyone agrees to delegate their use of violence to the state, who in turn executes that violence through the appropriate means (police etc) using the appropriate rules. If violence is taken into one’s hands the whole foundation of the political community breaks down, which means that the state has existential interests in prosecuting whoever does it.

States where violence is not really prosecuted are those commonly considered failed states.

Now I know this is rather abstract and the real world is more complex than that, but as I said this would require a lot more space than is available here. But there is your answer: [privately administered] violence is not the answer.

You mean temporarily occupied Kralovec